sotto voce

And who is it that atheists can define as Christians? It's not for you to say, is it. Even if it was, it would be off topic.

Thompson, or his busy little priest, has read my several posts indicating that God, if he exists, has left faith optional. There is no logical necessity to it, as there is for the square on the hypotenuse. This idea is anathema to the frenzied absolutist mind, that comes out with precisely the sort of perversity that Thompson has.

But alleged atheists never give the option a chance. They defend totalitarians to the hilt. Or change the subject. Anything to get away from the optional nature of theism, of Christianity, of justification by faith, that the Vatican, established by fascist fiat, anathematised.

sotto voce

Quite so, but once the existence of a deity has been recognised, it does seem silly to suppose that one knows as much as he does. TedM's comment is for confessed believers only. So what it's doing here is anyone's guess.

MrMacSon

I wouldn't classify those this as 'objective' claims: I view them as unsubstantiated claims.

sotto voce

They are claims substantiated daily by 'atheists'.

Toto

My thoughts are at least equal to some other inhabitant of planet earth who claims that god exists.

If you want to play the game of defining a god who cannot be questioned, cannot be proven, and who makes no logical sense, you are welcome to live in your own little bubble. But this god lives only in your head, and the only purpose of this god is to rationalize your beliefs to yourself.

sotto voce

There is one deity who makes sense. That's why we are here, in BC&H. That's why Thompson seeks to misrepresent him. That's why we see Catholics trying to catch up with Christianity.

Though they are trying to tell us that atheism is a busted flush, and the next best resort is the Vatican. It's some choice, isn't it, atheism, or an outfit admired by Adolf, bloody and/or abusive in every generation since bloody Constantine. It is surely more respectable to be atheist than Catholic, at any rate.

Sheshbazzar

...or a bastard child of one of those whoring daughters of the Great Whore.

sotto voce

Quite. Any who give the RCC credence are such offspring, and in effect condone crime.

TedM

I"m not playing a game. I'm not defining god in this way. Your logic is limited. I'm simply saying we (meaning all of us) should not be so arrogant as to think we have the right to hold onto our judgements about God as being lazy, good, bad, uncaring, etc.. with any sense of certainty because if he exists and created us he obviously knows more than us about the reasons for the things we don't like.

We are talking about judging our creator, if he exists. You certainly can question him but all I'm saying is we (all of us) don't know enough as to think we are justified in judging him. What argument do you have to support the idea that we know more about what is good or bad or lazy, etc.. than our creator?

MrMacSon

How so??

By giving ppl the opportunity to make statements supporting them?